I'm not familiar with Snelling. It sounds like you've encountered him/her before.

Andrew Snelling is a big name in Young-Earth Creationism who is noted for his 'double life'—on the one hand, he is the Editor in Chief of the Creationist magazine Answers Reseach Journal (which seems to have only one editor…); on the other hand, he has published a number of real scientific papers in the field of geology, papers which make just as much use of the standard millions-of-years timescale as do papers written by any real geologist.

It appears that Snelling has no problem with selling his "nepesh" (soul) to keep the paychecks coming in.

If he actually believes scientifically acceptable time scales and associated data he's willfully lying when he preaches the YEC stuff, and if he actually believes the YEC stuff he's willfully lying when he writes up or otherwise disseminates the scientifically acceptable time scales and associated data.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"MicroRNA-mediated gene regulation is important in many physiological processes. Here we explore the roles of a microRNA, miR-941, in human evolution. We find that miR-941 emerged de novo in the human lineage, between six and one million years ago, from an evolutionarily volatile tandem repeat sequence."

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie. He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

--------------- Born right the first time.- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie. He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

It's just word games - we use the same word for "scientific" law and "legal" law.

He's hearing "I need to get this work done fast" and demanding you tell him how many miles per hour.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie. He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

It's just word games - we use the same word for "scientific" law and "legal" law.

He's hearing "I need to get this work done fast" and demanding you tell him how many miles per hour.

Maybe I didn't state my question correctly. I think what he is attempting to say is, (1) these laws/rules were in play before the beginning of the universe and that they universe is a result of those laws/rules...(2) then, gawd created these laws/rules.

Poof!...proof of gawd.

--------------- Born right the first time.- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie. He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

It's just word games - we use the same word for "scientific" law and "legal" law.

He's hearing "I need to get this work done fast" and demanding you tell him how many miles per hour.

Maybe I didn't state my question correctly. I think what he is attempting to say is, (1) these laws/rules were in play before the beginning of the universe and that they universe is a result of those laws/rules...(2) then, gawd created these laws/rules.

Poof!...proof of gawd.

Quote

(1) these laws/rules were in play before the beginning of the universe and that they universe is a result of those laws/rules

Ask him what his evidence is.

Quote

(2) then, gawd created these laws/rules.

Ask him what his evidence is. Even if (1) were true, they could be fundamental properties. The Universe might have to be this way.

If he's got anything (other than Teh Bibble) beyond "we don't know" for either of these, he could be in line for a trip to Sweden.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Scientists seem to have forgotten the implications of time, which is, of course, an important consequence of their discoveries.

1. Scientists agree that time began at the time of the big bang.

2. Scientists agree that time is a measure of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), and therefore time moves forward.

3. Scientists predict the universe will go on forever, contract into a big crunch, or bounce back from a crunch to begin a new universe.

4. How about the beginning? What do scientists say about it? Mostly, they ignore it. Assuming scientists agree to a time line, they must acknowledge a beginning.

5. If you eliminate God as a cause for the big bang, you must provide an answer based on physical laws.

6. Here is the problem for science. Science can't explain how matter and energy created itself. Also, science can't explain how, in the beginning, physical laws necessary for matter and energy, came into existence.

8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal. [QUOTE]

--------------- Born right the first time.- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

The conservation of mass/energy might be read to imply energy and mass are in fact eternal. The mass/energy that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is mass/energy is that which shall be mass/energy: and there is no new mass/energy under the sun.

Scientists seem to have forgotten the implications of time, which is, of course, an important consequence of their discoveries.

1. Scientists agree that time began at the time of the big bang.

2. Scientists agree that time is a measure of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), and therefore time moves forward.

3. Scientists predict the universe will go on forever, contract into a big crunch, or bounce back from a crunch to begin a new universe.

4. How about the beginning? What do scientists say about it? Mostly, they ignore it. Assuming scientists agree to a time line, they must acknowledge a beginning.

5. If you eliminate God as a cause for the big bang, you must provide an answer based on physical laws.

6. Here is the problem for science. Science can't explain how matter and energy created itself. Also, science can't explain how, in the beginning, physical laws necessary for matter and energy, came into existence.

8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal. [QUOTE]

So it's just god of the gaps.

"Science hasn't explained" ^= "Science can't explain"

And even if science can't explain, that doesnt mean goddidit. It means we don't know.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

The conservation of mass/energy might be read to imply energy and mass are in fact eternal. The mass/energy that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is mass/energy is that which shall be mass/energy: and there is no new mass/energy under the sun.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Analysis of 120 archaeal genomes shows that the Last Common Ancestor was more complex than archaea today, and that gene loss dominates over genetic addition by 4:1. Similar results for a comparable set of bacteria.

I say - what you would expect if a generalist ancestor split into many specialist descendants to exploit niches. Not evidence of The Fall, or Noah's Flood.

Some time ago, I was working as a volunteer for a scam warning site when I came across this type of scam.

The potential victim had received an email invitation to publish in a journal she had never heard about (no money mentioned at this point), so she was wary and asked us for advice.

We managed to finally trace the site through a lot of in-betweens back to a free website hosted in - Nigeria! So we were confident in predicting that at some point, she would be asked for money and recommended to stay clear of it.